PCMA Principles
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2026 6:08 am
Introductory Note: this text attempts to give form to PCMA's political principles, ideological outlook, and unique culture that the autor believes has been steadily evolving since its formation. An attempt is made to make solid what was often spontaneous and free-form, as our organization has been a unique cultural-political avante-garde within an already avante-garde movement. Of course an effort is not merely being made to define what PCMA is but also to drive it to greater heights in terms of what it could be. This only happens if everyone else is, more or less, on the same team as even experienced members do sadly quit (which is the case in any radical movement -- high turnover is always a problem even in movements far more mainstream than ours) and new members take time to commit and to acculturate. If these principles, goals, values, and ideas, speak to you then either join directly or contact me here or in DM. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me or other PCMA members in DMs here or in the thread below:
PCMA Mission Statement And Principles
PCMA, or Pro-Contact MAP Activists is an organization that places its foremost emphasis on the overthrow of laws, statutes, juridicidal prejudices at the State level that criminalize Minor Attracted People as its primary goal. In addition to this, we demand the end of stigmatization, unconstitutional and extra-judicial medical internment practices, medicalization including but not limited to chemical and surgical castration, the transformation of therapists' offices into state-coerced snitch centers via mandatory reporting laws and all other associated practices prejudicial to MAP safety, freedom, mental health, and identity. In addition to this, we seek education and influence of the public mind, the lessening of contemporary prejudice (which has hit extreme levels) in regard to MAPs, youth erotica, and adult-minor relationships. We seek broad-based sexual liberation rather than the incomplete sexual liberations of the past, we note with approval Harry Haywood's comment that identity had already replaced sex within the bourgeoisifying de-radicalizing LGBT movement of the early 2000s and that a number of activists in the LGBT movement in the 70s (then in its most radical phase) referred to it simply as “the sexual liberation” refusing to appellate gay to the movement they were part of to underscore its both its particular focus and universal character. We do this to underscore our group's historic point of focus that sets ours apart from others and not to relegate identity to a realm of complete irrelevance.
Next, we seek the diminishment of the prejudices, vitriol, vigilante violence, censorship and social coercion, and general ignorance that the Western public has for MAPs, youth erotica, Adult-Minor relationships and youth sexuality. We do not sugarcoat the fact that the population of the West are anti-MAP bigots in the super-majority with a great number exhibiting not only extreme punitiveness and vindictiveness but great opposition to the existing legal rights we have. We can point to potential silver linings and favorable trends within this general social picture but any MAP organization that fails to acknowledge this fact cannot succeed. While not forgetting this fact, we should distinguish between active antis, especially so-called “anti-pedophile” or “child protection” activists and people who merely passively hold or are unwilling to question the dominant anti-MAP bigotry and prejudices of our time.
We seek the end of the age segregation in American and broader Western society, both legal and social, which has criminalized and repressed MAPs and youth in particular and flattened and corroded human experience. At the minimum, a more fluid approach should be taken to “age roles” and the age-related taboos that flow from them, we see that even among legal adults this is leading to incredible acrimony, self and social limitation and stunted thinking. Obviously, humans assign meaning to age but how much and what that entails has varied with the times, we do not presume that we ourselves can abolish or fully displace the meanings that people choose to give to it but we support those who question their placement within a system of assigned age-roles by the dominant social-system and prevailing social attitudes. We consider ourselves friendly to those who are age-regressors or consider themselves trans-age but we at present we do not presume to speak on behalf of such groups or individuals, only to say that we see aligned interest and potential for friendly relations and mutual support.
Likewise, those in neuroatypical, paraphiliac and alternative trans subcultures (particularly the edgy ones) have a certain amount of mutual crosspollination and interaction with our group and the MAP scene at large. In addition to these groups, we see a correllation of interest between minor liberation, minor desire for sexual freedom, minor MAPs, AAMs, minor sex workers and sex workers in general. We advocate for MAP liberation as our primary goal and since MAPs are the most criminalized and stigmatized sexual minority to ever exist, we see their liberation as something that moves the needle for other groups that have aligned or sympathetic concerns who have experienced incomplete liberations. For a MAP organization to put MAP interests as primary is no less valid than for a black liberation group to center black people as their subject and black interests as their primary concern, as Black Lives Matters did not so long ago in the recent past.
We do not say that there are no cases when we must speak on other issues or on behalf of other groups or that this strategy might become outmoded. What has been predicted in internal discussions is that inevitably as anti-MAP prejudices soften, some major victories are won, age-taboos around sex recede, what will emerge is an intense conflict between sex positive and sex-negative people. We firmly take the side of those who consider themselves sex positive in that coming conflagration. And we will place their interest and priority above those who are both real and potental allies on the basis of identity alone. Where we are willing to speak and advocate on youth issues without reservation is in the realm of Minor MAPs, many of us discovered we were MAPs while still minors ourselves, and those sympathetic minors who are not attracted to children, while more than capable of being great allies and fighters in our experience, are under considerable pressure to conform into the present viscerally anti-MAP society upon reaching legal adulthood – the chains that held non-minor attracted former minors begin to lessen and what is in many cases a natural confluence of interest can dissolve as people forget what it was like to be held in legally-sanctioned submission to State and parental authorties. Among non-minor MAPs who are not self-identified AAMs or allies, we give priority to minor sex workers most of all and then to the sex positive “gooners” among the youth cohort. A note on language, we use the term minor not because we wish for the category to exist but because it is a fact of our present reality. The term proletariat for instance was used in the Roman constitution for those free people who owned nothing but their children, to describe that state of material deprivation or lopsided social power, is not to endorse it. We can imagine many scenarios where a person who is in their very late teens or early to mid 20s may have interests or sympathies that coincide with our own but the situation of a legally adult young person are quite different from that of someone who is still a minor.
We priortize organizing among MAPs first because all other political factions or advocacy groups are either led or composed by anti-MAPs or use favorable dogwhistles as a carrot to get MAPs behind their political project only to side-line MAP interests. The willingness of MAPs to allow themselves to be willing dupes and aid non-MAP political projects for nothing in return is part of why MAPs are so extremely marginalized and criminalized. We give no support for any political organization or political project that is anti-MAP especially without tangible proof of commitment that we will get something in return. We also call on MAPs to stop working on other peoples farms – to stop lending free labor, money, and advoacy to non-MAP causes without broaching the issue with the organizers or getting assurances of something in return. In politics, like life, promises and assurances can be broken but a broken promise or even forced engagement on our issue has more weight than nothing at all. We can't control what MAPs as a group choose to do, some MAPs will have causes they care about they choose to align themselves with, those that do should stop entering that arena without at the very least trying to force the issue when relevant. Our broad recommendation is abstention from non-MAP politics.
However, MAP liberation is inherently a political proposition. By criminalizing MAPs, MAPs whatever their diveristy of outlook, attitude, and opinion are made into political subjects because the State is political in its nature. “Civil Society” too, out of which the State grows, is a political venue and therefore it is not only at the legal level or in the halls of the presidency or legistlature where MAP existence is made into a politicized proposition but in the workplaces, schools, internet, streets, churches, clubs, media etc. MAPs must seek to contest anti-MAP attitudes and divide anti-MAP coalitions not only at the state level but at all levels when and where possible. To do this requires political education and other scientific education among MAPs, particularly in the realm of sexology, and internal ethics and principles among ourselves. We are not a moralist organization in that we prescribe a universal morality for all people; moralism itself has a fatal flaw in that even if a universal morality can be isolated that is truly transhistorical can be found that all people can agree upon is found this does not mean that the systems that produce social, political, or economic dysfunction can be changed with moral exhortations or even that its effects can be greatly ameliorated as moralists claim. Nor is it necessarily the case that these things can be changed by acting legally at all times or that “immoral” actions won't have to be used to fight for the oppressed or that we shouldn't look at immoral actions committed by an oppressed group as different from wider society.
It is not necessarily good for MAPs to feel empathy for the enemy or sympathize with them just due to their status in an oppressed group (however defined) or because an injury or transgression was committed against them either. If there is one “character flaw” that many MAPs have that has blocked their liberation it is actually being too nice and too empathetic. This has led to an unwillingness to consistently challenge and attack enemies and to consistently take our own side. It is quite plausible, we would posit almost certain, that MAPs would have made more progress by now if it wasn't the case. Outside of extreme cases, we do not feel compelled to add our voice to the chorus if a MAP is correctly accused of moral or legal transgression, there are plenty of people doing that. Since being a pro-contact group puts us well outside the moral mainstream we must choose our own ethics and principles ourselves. For those who are unaware of the distinction, ethics are principles that a group chooses for itself – a doctor or lawyer has ethics on a professional basis that the general population is not bound to. Then political and organizational principles furnish a basis of agreement and ideological coherence and internal structure that can allow us to be effective among ourselves and in dealing with the outer world. We will discuss those shortly.
We must emphasize that PCMA takes the stance that not only is it a revolutionary organization but attaining MAP rights and MAP liberation will require both a revolutionary mindset and revolutionary action. As one comrade put it, “it is easier for many normies to imagine the end of the world then for an adult and a child to love each other sexually so you might as well link up with those forces that want revolutionary change or are radically destabilizing.” In the present day, we see that the Western liberal establishment that MAPs have tried so earnestly to appeal to or integrate into is a walking corpse. Is it really a question of reform or revolution? We take the stand that there's no difference. Even if our aims could be achieved with no revolutionary change in the present order of things by state fiat these reforms will simply never be implemented without a willingness of MAPs to organize for revolutionary action and to promote pro-revolutionary MAP ideology. We hold that MAP liberation will look quite different from the world we grew up in and under a more sexually liberated environment then what existed in past times when the taboo against MAPs was not as strong as now, it could look different from any civilized human society we've seen so far or maybe ever. A full acheivement of our aims may not be possible under existing bourgeois-democratic society and in that case we will go over to those forces that want to overthrow whole-heartedly, even if we've achieve more than we ever thought possible within the status quo. PCMA considers itself to be pre-party formation. At present, we lack sufficient numbers and infrastructure to say definitively that it is and while we believe PCMA has created for itself a distinct culture and an implicit non-systemically outlined ideological worldview working out culture, experience, and ideology and establishing complete group consensus remains to be done. We do not say that being a pre-party formation is an inherent flaw, at present no MAP group can really claim to be a party, especially that of the party that represents MAPs as a collective. Presently, the leadership practices a kind of checks and balances group democracy with highly motivated users serving as mods and admins and seeking democratic input/assent from general membership, this is somewhat akin to the American checks and balances system or the “guided democracy” of the Roman Republic. At a certain point, perhaps when something akin to a party has been achieved or perhaps when leadership and membership feels it to be ready, we feel the best model for a MAP organization/party is likely to be democratic-centralism. While the form itself is associated with Leninist political parties it is not inherently communist, the KMT who opposed the Maoists during the Chinese Civil War themselves followed a democratic-centralist model.
Political Principles
1. We seek the abolition of the age of consent. While potential danger and harm exists in unrestricted sexual contact with small children we believe it likely that an alternative framework can be drafted to handle cases of actual sexual abuse. Age of consent itself poses a problem in that whatever age it is set to leads to a risk of its very existence being used to justify further raises in the age of consent – which did happen historically. If such an alternative framework cannot be created then we propose an age of consent of five years old. We will not enter alliance with any MAP group that does support reducing the age of consent to at least seven years old. Likewise, a belief that the age of consent should be reduced to ten is the minimum requirement for association. We cannot consider any group that doesn't support age of consent abolition at least as an historical end-goal to be a fraternal organization.
2. Support for the abolition of all sex registries
3. Support for the release of all non-violent sex offenders. And the commutation of all categories of non-violent sex offenses to civil offenses.
4. Decriminalization of all child pornography involving real minors. While the existence of violent and coerced child pornography can be debated as something that should really be tolerated on free speech grounds as long as extremely gruesome videos of people being tortured or actually killed is tolerated on free speech or other grounds the case against legalizing/decriminalizing all child pornography is weak. Photos or videos of dead children can be readily viewed online and whether their viewer gets some sort of kick out of it is apparently not a reason for law enforcement to circumscribe its possession directly. As long as this is tolerated there's no case against child pornography in general, even if most MAPs wish that truly disturbing content did not exist!
5. Legalization of sex work. Release of all sex workers from jail and the expunging of their criminal record and/or registry status. We support sex workers as part of a pro-sex and anti-criminalization effort. Sex work is also one of the more common avenues that minors barred from formal employment or needing money to escape home environments often turn to and we see it as a pro-YL plank that does not clash or contradict other values.What one chooses to do with their body in terms of sex in a so-called democracy should be their own affair. We anticipate that not all will be comfortable with the implications of sex work for religious reasons, fear of the impact it has non sex-work relationships in society, influencing them to be more quid pro quo, or anxiety about the commodification of the human body. While we live under capitalism we see no reason to treat it differently from other jobs or to support laws or pigs that seek to police it. If we were to move to a different mode of production as a society then the conditions of modern production seem to make the oppositional concern about a lack of productive labor obsolete and opposition to sex work to be mere moralism. If a condition of superproductivity via automation that were to allow for complete decommodification to be achieved, then money would be useless and it would likely be a dead issue. Already, techno-optimists in silicon valley speak as if this could be possible in the near future. Therefore, we see no valid reason to oppose sex work, we leave open the possibility of its regulation for labor and human rights concerns, though we generally oppose it in the present sex-negative society and our preferrence is for non-state regulation given its track record of criminalizing sex workers and their clients.
6. Support for broad sexual liberation and sexual liberation ideologically.
7. Opposition to “Parents Rights” both as the reactionary bigoted political movement that it is and at the philosophical level.
8. Support for the MAP cause above other political commitments. Support for revolutionary action against the anti-MAP state and wider society
9. Support for MAP mental health resources
10. Support for all fictional and AI generated youth pornography
11. Support for principled MAP self-defense
12. Support for moving past the consent paradigm as a legal framework where possible 1
13. Support for ending all medicalist frameworks that oppress adult and minor MAPs. The declassification of pedophilia as a mental illness and the end of medical confinement for MAPs and castration practices for incarcerated sex offenders. While we intend to maintain cordial relations with MAP-sympathetic professional networks like B4UACT we give no political or legal authority to psyciatry as a field. The seeking of psychiatric treatment is a personal decision and we can understand both the risks and potential benefits but the role that the field of psychiatry has played in marginalizing MAPs and other “sexual deviants” historically-speaking means the legitimacy/function of the field itself merits critical examination. Especially when some of the most popular anti-MAP/sex negative talking points among youth emanate from therapy culture.
14. Support for free speech as a political principle/culture. Free speech benefits MAPs. Whether one believes in total free speech absolutism or has a problem with the concept or think it can be circumscribed. The group takes the position of free speech absolutism in the present moment. Members are expected to at least support 1st Amendment guidelines for speech as a political project when it comes to MAP activism and moderation of large social media companies. The place where we are open to moderating our speech stance is in relation to censoring anti-MAP bigots, which isn't on the table now or in the foreseeable near term future. We will not change our stance on speech outside our space even if its felt more restricted speech favors other marginalized groups.
15. Support for moving past the legal category of minor as a historical end-goal. We use the term minor attracted person (MAP) to point to the concrete social, legal, and historical reality of being a youth lover attracted to someone below the magic age line in present society. We do not pretend to have all the answers on this front, it has been a core component of how Western particulalry, British-derived societies have been governed for 800 years. We support alternative frameworks that can help take us to this end, however it is done. The concept of the minor is a legal-social concept that arises historically and one that is almost certain to fall historically as well. We support this as a complementary statement on desirability of loosening/abolishing age-roles and age-segregation. It seems to be historical destiny, however far-fetched it seems at present, children and teens will one day emerge as full citizens within polities calling themselves democratic. There is already movement in this direction such as the decision to lower the voting age to 16 in the United Kingdom. Prior to the Vietnam War in the United States and many other Western countries, the legal age to vote was 21 and somehow this reduction did not provoke a social collapse but a strengthening of political democracy in the historical period that it was passed.
Ethical Principles
1. Safety – we prioritize the safety of MAPs in terms of opsec and potential exposure to legal or social risk that might occur from the disclosure of their identity.
2. Opposition to doxxing – we do not doxx fellow MAPs or allow doxxers within the community to be members.
3. Comradely spirit – members should strive to be friendly and helpful where possible especially internally within the group.
4. Members engaged in relationships with minors unbenownst to leadership or the group should be as ethical as possible in the relationship. While the consent paradigm has a number of questionable problematics it should be noted that even a consensual relationship is potentially at risk of creating iatrogenic harm in a minor in the current environment. Consent may be a flawed concept and maybe in some ways its hard to say if it ever truly exists (hence the byzantine debates over when an act is or isn't consented to etc.) but its notable that its an idea that still colors how people see all relationships. Members should definitely act like consent is obviously real. When in doubt its best to err on the safe side and do as little harm as possible. Blackmail practices towards minors and others are also unacceptable.
5. Moderation has an obligation to try to keep the group free of suspicious actors to the best of their ability.
6. Group membership requires both good behavior on the part of members and broad subscription to the points of principle and ideological planks laid out in this paper. Group membership is a privilege rather than a right. At a certain point, a system will be introduced so trusted and long-known members can't be removed without a process likely involving appeal. Sometimes a person may become a bad fit in spite of a lack of specific rule breaking, this will at some point require a formal process but moderators are expected to err on the side of caution until then. New members can be removed without specific rule-breaking especially if they demonstrate suspicious behavior but moderators should be cautious about well-known members. Not all existing members will likely agree with these points of principle laid out in the document this document does not grandfather-in all members who existed prior to its approval.
Approved, on Alice Day 2026
PCMA Mission Statement And Principles
PCMA, or Pro-Contact MAP Activists is an organization that places its foremost emphasis on the overthrow of laws, statutes, juridicidal prejudices at the State level that criminalize Minor Attracted People as its primary goal. In addition to this, we demand the end of stigmatization, unconstitutional and extra-judicial medical internment practices, medicalization including but not limited to chemical and surgical castration, the transformation of therapists' offices into state-coerced snitch centers via mandatory reporting laws and all other associated practices prejudicial to MAP safety, freedom, mental health, and identity. In addition to this, we seek education and influence of the public mind, the lessening of contemporary prejudice (which has hit extreme levels) in regard to MAPs, youth erotica, and adult-minor relationships. We seek broad-based sexual liberation rather than the incomplete sexual liberations of the past, we note with approval Harry Haywood's comment that identity had already replaced sex within the bourgeoisifying de-radicalizing LGBT movement of the early 2000s and that a number of activists in the LGBT movement in the 70s (then in its most radical phase) referred to it simply as “the sexual liberation” refusing to appellate gay to the movement they were part of to underscore its both its particular focus and universal character. We do this to underscore our group's historic point of focus that sets ours apart from others and not to relegate identity to a realm of complete irrelevance.
Next, we seek the diminishment of the prejudices, vitriol, vigilante violence, censorship and social coercion, and general ignorance that the Western public has for MAPs, youth erotica, Adult-Minor relationships and youth sexuality. We do not sugarcoat the fact that the population of the West are anti-MAP bigots in the super-majority with a great number exhibiting not only extreme punitiveness and vindictiveness but great opposition to the existing legal rights we have. We can point to potential silver linings and favorable trends within this general social picture but any MAP organization that fails to acknowledge this fact cannot succeed. While not forgetting this fact, we should distinguish between active antis, especially so-called “anti-pedophile” or “child protection” activists and people who merely passively hold or are unwilling to question the dominant anti-MAP bigotry and prejudices of our time.
We seek the end of the age segregation in American and broader Western society, both legal and social, which has criminalized and repressed MAPs and youth in particular and flattened and corroded human experience. At the minimum, a more fluid approach should be taken to “age roles” and the age-related taboos that flow from them, we see that even among legal adults this is leading to incredible acrimony, self and social limitation and stunted thinking. Obviously, humans assign meaning to age but how much and what that entails has varied with the times, we do not presume that we ourselves can abolish or fully displace the meanings that people choose to give to it but we support those who question their placement within a system of assigned age-roles by the dominant social-system and prevailing social attitudes. We consider ourselves friendly to those who are age-regressors or consider themselves trans-age but we at present we do not presume to speak on behalf of such groups or individuals, only to say that we see aligned interest and potential for friendly relations and mutual support.
Likewise, those in neuroatypical, paraphiliac and alternative trans subcultures (particularly the edgy ones) have a certain amount of mutual crosspollination and interaction with our group and the MAP scene at large. In addition to these groups, we see a correllation of interest between minor liberation, minor desire for sexual freedom, minor MAPs, AAMs, minor sex workers and sex workers in general. We advocate for MAP liberation as our primary goal and since MAPs are the most criminalized and stigmatized sexual minority to ever exist, we see their liberation as something that moves the needle for other groups that have aligned or sympathetic concerns who have experienced incomplete liberations. For a MAP organization to put MAP interests as primary is no less valid than for a black liberation group to center black people as their subject and black interests as their primary concern, as Black Lives Matters did not so long ago in the recent past.
We do not say that there are no cases when we must speak on other issues or on behalf of other groups or that this strategy might become outmoded. What has been predicted in internal discussions is that inevitably as anti-MAP prejudices soften, some major victories are won, age-taboos around sex recede, what will emerge is an intense conflict between sex positive and sex-negative people. We firmly take the side of those who consider themselves sex positive in that coming conflagration. And we will place their interest and priority above those who are both real and potental allies on the basis of identity alone. Where we are willing to speak and advocate on youth issues without reservation is in the realm of Minor MAPs, many of us discovered we were MAPs while still minors ourselves, and those sympathetic minors who are not attracted to children, while more than capable of being great allies and fighters in our experience, are under considerable pressure to conform into the present viscerally anti-MAP society upon reaching legal adulthood – the chains that held non-minor attracted former minors begin to lessen and what is in many cases a natural confluence of interest can dissolve as people forget what it was like to be held in legally-sanctioned submission to State and parental authorties. Among non-minor MAPs who are not self-identified AAMs or allies, we give priority to minor sex workers most of all and then to the sex positive “gooners” among the youth cohort. A note on language, we use the term minor not because we wish for the category to exist but because it is a fact of our present reality. The term proletariat for instance was used in the Roman constitution for those free people who owned nothing but their children, to describe that state of material deprivation or lopsided social power, is not to endorse it. We can imagine many scenarios where a person who is in their very late teens or early to mid 20s may have interests or sympathies that coincide with our own but the situation of a legally adult young person are quite different from that of someone who is still a minor.
We priortize organizing among MAPs first because all other political factions or advocacy groups are either led or composed by anti-MAPs or use favorable dogwhistles as a carrot to get MAPs behind their political project only to side-line MAP interests. The willingness of MAPs to allow themselves to be willing dupes and aid non-MAP political projects for nothing in return is part of why MAPs are so extremely marginalized and criminalized. We give no support for any political organization or political project that is anti-MAP especially without tangible proof of commitment that we will get something in return. We also call on MAPs to stop working on other peoples farms – to stop lending free labor, money, and advoacy to non-MAP causes without broaching the issue with the organizers or getting assurances of something in return. In politics, like life, promises and assurances can be broken but a broken promise or even forced engagement on our issue has more weight than nothing at all. We can't control what MAPs as a group choose to do, some MAPs will have causes they care about they choose to align themselves with, those that do should stop entering that arena without at the very least trying to force the issue when relevant. Our broad recommendation is abstention from non-MAP politics.
However, MAP liberation is inherently a political proposition. By criminalizing MAPs, MAPs whatever their diveristy of outlook, attitude, and opinion are made into political subjects because the State is political in its nature. “Civil Society” too, out of which the State grows, is a political venue and therefore it is not only at the legal level or in the halls of the presidency or legistlature where MAP existence is made into a politicized proposition but in the workplaces, schools, internet, streets, churches, clubs, media etc. MAPs must seek to contest anti-MAP attitudes and divide anti-MAP coalitions not only at the state level but at all levels when and where possible. To do this requires political education and other scientific education among MAPs, particularly in the realm of sexology, and internal ethics and principles among ourselves. We are not a moralist organization in that we prescribe a universal morality for all people; moralism itself has a fatal flaw in that even if a universal morality can be isolated that is truly transhistorical can be found that all people can agree upon is found this does not mean that the systems that produce social, political, or economic dysfunction can be changed with moral exhortations or even that its effects can be greatly ameliorated as moralists claim. Nor is it necessarily the case that these things can be changed by acting legally at all times or that “immoral” actions won't have to be used to fight for the oppressed or that we shouldn't look at immoral actions committed by an oppressed group as different from wider society.
It is not necessarily good for MAPs to feel empathy for the enemy or sympathize with them just due to their status in an oppressed group (however defined) or because an injury or transgression was committed against them either. If there is one “character flaw” that many MAPs have that has blocked their liberation it is actually being too nice and too empathetic. This has led to an unwillingness to consistently challenge and attack enemies and to consistently take our own side. It is quite plausible, we would posit almost certain, that MAPs would have made more progress by now if it wasn't the case. Outside of extreme cases, we do not feel compelled to add our voice to the chorus if a MAP is correctly accused of moral or legal transgression, there are plenty of people doing that. Since being a pro-contact group puts us well outside the moral mainstream we must choose our own ethics and principles ourselves. For those who are unaware of the distinction, ethics are principles that a group chooses for itself – a doctor or lawyer has ethics on a professional basis that the general population is not bound to. Then political and organizational principles furnish a basis of agreement and ideological coherence and internal structure that can allow us to be effective among ourselves and in dealing with the outer world. We will discuss those shortly.
We must emphasize that PCMA takes the stance that not only is it a revolutionary organization but attaining MAP rights and MAP liberation will require both a revolutionary mindset and revolutionary action. As one comrade put it, “it is easier for many normies to imagine the end of the world then for an adult and a child to love each other sexually so you might as well link up with those forces that want revolutionary change or are radically destabilizing.” In the present day, we see that the Western liberal establishment that MAPs have tried so earnestly to appeal to or integrate into is a walking corpse. Is it really a question of reform or revolution? We take the stand that there's no difference. Even if our aims could be achieved with no revolutionary change in the present order of things by state fiat these reforms will simply never be implemented without a willingness of MAPs to organize for revolutionary action and to promote pro-revolutionary MAP ideology. We hold that MAP liberation will look quite different from the world we grew up in and under a more sexually liberated environment then what existed in past times when the taboo against MAPs was not as strong as now, it could look different from any civilized human society we've seen so far or maybe ever. A full acheivement of our aims may not be possible under existing bourgeois-democratic society and in that case we will go over to those forces that want to overthrow whole-heartedly, even if we've achieve more than we ever thought possible within the status quo. PCMA considers itself to be pre-party formation. At present, we lack sufficient numbers and infrastructure to say definitively that it is and while we believe PCMA has created for itself a distinct culture and an implicit non-systemically outlined ideological worldview working out culture, experience, and ideology and establishing complete group consensus remains to be done. We do not say that being a pre-party formation is an inherent flaw, at present no MAP group can really claim to be a party, especially that of the party that represents MAPs as a collective. Presently, the leadership practices a kind of checks and balances group democracy with highly motivated users serving as mods and admins and seeking democratic input/assent from general membership, this is somewhat akin to the American checks and balances system or the “guided democracy” of the Roman Republic. At a certain point, perhaps when something akin to a party has been achieved or perhaps when leadership and membership feels it to be ready, we feel the best model for a MAP organization/party is likely to be democratic-centralism. While the form itself is associated with Leninist political parties it is not inherently communist, the KMT who opposed the Maoists during the Chinese Civil War themselves followed a democratic-centralist model.
Political Principles
1. We seek the abolition of the age of consent. While potential danger and harm exists in unrestricted sexual contact with small children we believe it likely that an alternative framework can be drafted to handle cases of actual sexual abuse. Age of consent itself poses a problem in that whatever age it is set to leads to a risk of its very existence being used to justify further raises in the age of consent – which did happen historically. If such an alternative framework cannot be created then we propose an age of consent of five years old. We will not enter alliance with any MAP group that does support reducing the age of consent to at least seven years old. Likewise, a belief that the age of consent should be reduced to ten is the minimum requirement for association. We cannot consider any group that doesn't support age of consent abolition at least as an historical end-goal to be a fraternal organization.
2. Support for the abolition of all sex registries
3. Support for the release of all non-violent sex offenders. And the commutation of all categories of non-violent sex offenses to civil offenses.
4. Decriminalization of all child pornography involving real minors. While the existence of violent and coerced child pornography can be debated as something that should really be tolerated on free speech grounds as long as extremely gruesome videos of people being tortured or actually killed is tolerated on free speech or other grounds the case against legalizing/decriminalizing all child pornography is weak. Photos or videos of dead children can be readily viewed online and whether their viewer gets some sort of kick out of it is apparently not a reason for law enforcement to circumscribe its possession directly. As long as this is tolerated there's no case against child pornography in general, even if most MAPs wish that truly disturbing content did not exist!
5. Legalization of sex work. Release of all sex workers from jail and the expunging of their criminal record and/or registry status. We support sex workers as part of a pro-sex and anti-criminalization effort. Sex work is also one of the more common avenues that minors barred from formal employment or needing money to escape home environments often turn to and we see it as a pro-YL plank that does not clash or contradict other values.What one chooses to do with their body in terms of sex in a so-called democracy should be their own affair. We anticipate that not all will be comfortable with the implications of sex work for religious reasons, fear of the impact it has non sex-work relationships in society, influencing them to be more quid pro quo, or anxiety about the commodification of the human body. While we live under capitalism we see no reason to treat it differently from other jobs or to support laws or pigs that seek to police it. If we were to move to a different mode of production as a society then the conditions of modern production seem to make the oppositional concern about a lack of productive labor obsolete and opposition to sex work to be mere moralism. If a condition of superproductivity via automation that were to allow for complete decommodification to be achieved, then money would be useless and it would likely be a dead issue. Already, techno-optimists in silicon valley speak as if this could be possible in the near future. Therefore, we see no valid reason to oppose sex work, we leave open the possibility of its regulation for labor and human rights concerns, though we generally oppose it in the present sex-negative society and our preferrence is for non-state regulation given its track record of criminalizing sex workers and their clients.
6. Support for broad sexual liberation and sexual liberation ideologically.
7. Opposition to “Parents Rights” both as the reactionary bigoted political movement that it is and at the philosophical level.
8. Support for the MAP cause above other political commitments. Support for revolutionary action against the anti-MAP state and wider society
9. Support for MAP mental health resources
10. Support for all fictional and AI generated youth pornography
11. Support for principled MAP self-defense
12. Support for moving past the consent paradigm as a legal framework where possible 1
13. Support for ending all medicalist frameworks that oppress adult and minor MAPs. The declassification of pedophilia as a mental illness and the end of medical confinement for MAPs and castration practices for incarcerated sex offenders. While we intend to maintain cordial relations with MAP-sympathetic professional networks like B4UACT we give no political or legal authority to psyciatry as a field. The seeking of psychiatric treatment is a personal decision and we can understand both the risks and potential benefits but the role that the field of psychiatry has played in marginalizing MAPs and other “sexual deviants” historically-speaking means the legitimacy/function of the field itself merits critical examination. Especially when some of the most popular anti-MAP/sex negative talking points among youth emanate from therapy culture.
14. Support for free speech as a political principle/culture. Free speech benefits MAPs. Whether one believes in total free speech absolutism or has a problem with the concept or think it can be circumscribed. The group takes the position of free speech absolutism in the present moment. Members are expected to at least support 1st Amendment guidelines for speech as a political project when it comes to MAP activism and moderation of large social media companies. The place where we are open to moderating our speech stance is in relation to censoring anti-MAP bigots, which isn't on the table now or in the foreseeable near term future. We will not change our stance on speech outside our space even if its felt more restricted speech favors other marginalized groups.
15. Support for moving past the legal category of minor as a historical end-goal. We use the term minor attracted person (MAP) to point to the concrete social, legal, and historical reality of being a youth lover attracted to someone below the magic age line in present society. We do not pretend to have all the answers on this front, it has been a core component of how Western particulalry, British-derived societies have been governed for 800 years. We support alternative frameworks that can help take us to this end, however it is done. The concept of the minor is a legal-social concept that arises historically and one that is almost certain to fall historically as well. We support this as a complementary statement on desirability of loosening/abolishing age-roles and age-segregation. It seems to be historical destiny, however far-fetched it seems at present, children and teens will one day emerge as full citizens within polities calling themselves democratic. There is already movement in this direction such as the decision to lower the voting age to 16 in the United Kingdom. Prior to the Vietnam War in the United States and many other Western countries, the legal age to vote was 21 and somehow this reduction did not provoke a social collapse but a strengthening of political democracy in the historical period that it was passed.
Ethical Principles
1. Safety – we prioritize the safety of MAPs in terms of opsec and potential exposure to legal or social risk that might occur from the disclosure of their identity.
2. Opposition to doxxing – we do not doxx fellow MAPs or allow doxxers within the community to be members.
3. Comradely spirit – members should strive to be friendly and helpful where possible especially internally within the group.
4. Members engaged in relationships with minors unbenownst to leadership or the group should be as ethical as possible in the relationship. While the consent paradigm has a number of questionable problematics it should be noted that even a consensual relationship is potentially at risk of creating iatrogenic harm in a minor in the current environment. Consent may be a flawed concept and maybe in some ways its hard to say if it ever truly exists (hence the byzantine debates over when an act is or isn't consented to etc.) but its notable that its an idea that still colors how people see all relationships. Members should definitely act like consent is obviously real. When in doubt its best to err on the safe side and do as little harm as possible. Blackmail practices towards minors and others are also unacceptable.
5. Moderation has an obligation to try to keep the group free of suspicious actors to the best of their ability.
6. Group membership requires both good behavior on the part of members and broad subscription to the points of principle and ideological planks laid out in this paper. Group membership is a privilege rather than a right. At a certain point, a system will be introduced so trusted and long-known members can't be removed without a process likely involving appeal. Sometimes a person may become a bad fit in spite of a lack of specific rule breaking, this will at some point require a formal process but moderators are expected to err on the side of caution until then. New members can be removed without specific rule-breaking especially if they demonstrate suspicious behavior but moderators should be cautious about well-known members. Not all existing members will likely agree with these points of principle laid out in the document this document does not grandfather-in all members who existed prior to its approval.
Approved, on Alice Day 2026